Translate

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Today, I wish to reflect on the ultimate help the National Episcopal Church delivered to the diocese of San Joaquin, from a single individuals perspective. Realize that I may have tunnel vision on several issues but that is to be expected.

First, the easiest thing to look at, at least superficially, is the financial state of the diocese. Any way one cuts this someone or perhaps, more importantly, some entity is going to take a huge financial blow. The diocese of San Joaquin has been given some gifts from the National Church but the diocese has also received millions of dollars in loans, and with a firm commitment to repay that amount to the National Church. Perhaps, one of the many reasons why no audit has been performed by an outside entity is due to the debt riddled financial statements. It is true, part of that issue involves the lack of full support by the various parishes that are and have been in the continuing diocese of San Joaquin. The rip torn by the defrocked bishop John David Schofield in the fabric of the diocese of San Joaquin warranted a completely new fabric but all the diocese got was needle and thread (and no sewing machine, we have been doing the sewing by hand. I for one can barely spell sew let alone do it). The lawsuits time, energy, funding, reviews, re-considerations, stays of trial dates and on and on and on have cost everyone their life savings. I am not a real estate appraiser but I suspect in order to stave off the National Church will require more than selling Christ the King buildings. It will take the sale of multiple buildings and re-building parishes all over the diocese. Why there is no long range plan to deal with property and the resulting return of all the property the diocese is merely shadow boxing in the dark.

Second, how many bishops have you, in diocese other than those hijacked, seen come and go in 4 or 5 years? Maybe, under extreme circumstances two. San Joaquin has gone through three bishops none of which were permanent including the current incumbent. Most parishes see a new rector about every seven years although there are noted exceptions everywhere (longer than 7 years). The problems with short term (job hopping or otherwise) tenure is nothing of real substance ever gets done. Think about how little really does get done in a diocese that has no money, no full time bishop, more lawsuits than the Supreme Court, and no parishioners! On top of that there appears (I stress appears) that there is little to no experience at the top with working with financially strapped organizations. Hard decisions get turned into a car contribution from the parishioners that cannot afford a rector picked to buy a car for the bishop. There is still very difficult, mean, feelings between parish and parishioners. Every administrator worth their weight will tell you that it takes at least 7 to 10 years of concerted effort to turn an organization such as this around, not just financially, but more importantly, spiritual life. And, while the national Church has tried to be helpful who needs a third thumb? Yet, they pull the strings of this diocese, not based on demand, because the diocese owes so much money all the National Church has to do is wave the notes and everyone in San Joaquin jumps.

Third, the issue of planning. It appears that the diocese (and perhaps the chancellor) in collaboration with the National Church has a plan all their own and no one but a few choice regulars get a peek under the covers. But, even with that, the diocese has no real plan, not for recovery of the buildings and grounds and certainly not for any spiritual mission. This would be almost laughable if it were not so deadly. With no cohesive plan for the parishes to buy into the Episcopal Church in the diocese of San Joaquin is dead. It just hasn't fallen over yet.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Yesterday was a real chance to let loose! Today, I have more questions. For example, why, with a crippled diocese would one have the bishop turnover of approximately one every two years? The first thing that any manager anywhere else does is establish credibility with those who follow. It is pretty hard to establish credibility when the top post is a musical chair.

Next, why, when only five of about 19 parishes remained loyal to the National Episcopal Church would those who suffered the most, get to pay for the crimes of those who left. Permit me to explain. By the time those renegade parishes left the financial affairs of the remaining parishes was a mess. Now, a renegade parish comes back, actually is chased down and returned to the real Episcopal Church and of course is in financial disarray. One would think that the parish that had left and was dragged back would have to pay for the transgressions that created the financial hardship. (In the Diocese of San Joaquin those parishes that left were forced to contribute to the general coffers for the purpose of legal services. In our case, the parish of St. Paul had a nice comfortable office for Bishop Rice. It appears he betrayed Christ the King for his own comfort. After all, why would a Bishop create his/her own discomfort? That would be taking pastoral care off hi/her flock to the extreme.

Next, in the midst of all the financial destruction going on, and in continuing for the diocese to borrow money for litigation, the Bishop decides he needs a new car. The natural thing would be to wait for the diocesan budget and cut in one or two places to free up money to buy a new car. Well, that just cannot be done! See, the diocese is in such financial straits that Bishop Rice had to ask each parish to come up with extra funds to give to the diocese for the purpose purchasing a car for the bishop. Now, Christ the King, clearly to be merged into St. Paul's, was asked to give to the diocese for the purpose of a car for the bishop. So, the bishop gets his car in part on the back of the parish that held firm when the winds of John David blew not only got to help buy a car for the bishop but the bishop saw to it that Christ the King parish.

The diocese from early 2008 until September of 2014 one would think that there would be two full scale long range plans developed. One for the financial side of churches being returned to the diocese and how they would fit or not fit or be sold. The second should have been for the purpose of re-establishing a long range mission plan for the diocese to bring to fruition. Nothing was done in either case. I was told by the bishop, our rector, the diocesan office, and the Standing Committee that there was a plan but no one in any place could produce the long range plans. Supposedly it was in some form of transition but there is no plan. How in the world does our diocese seek the return of every piece of property if there was not a plan and a plan on how to integrate the return of these buildings and grounds. And develop a new mission for the diocese and adopted by the parishes--- why would we need that? Bishop Rice said he was "known as a missioner bishop" so why would he need a plan? Plan, plans, we don't need no stinkin' plans!

Finally, for now, why in the world would the following happen in an Episcopal diocese? Most of the parishes of a diocese are ripped from the comfort of the arms of the National Episcopal Church, placed in the hands of the "Anglican diocese of the Southern Cone", and told that the Anglican Church was the only true denomination? That diocese then turns right back around and elects an Anglican bishop from New Zealand? Is there any need to explain why parishioners in te diocese would be skeptical? Well, turns out Bishop Rice wants to come back to his homeland of the United States and needs to have a place to work for immigration purposes. What better pace to put an Anglican Bishop than the nearly destroyed diocese of San Joaquin. Bishop Rice, gets to come home, gets to have a new car, and gets to keep his comfortable office while Christ the King, faithful follower of the National Episcopal Church. gets less than spit.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Fellow Episcopalians, I am at a genuine loss for words. Our beloved Episcopal Church in the presence of Christ the King Community Episcopal Church has been removed from the church rolls and left members to their own devices! Better yet, out in the cold and with no Episcopal Church to live within. My family and I are in deep, deep mourning for our loss. The bishop of San Joaquin (yep, the Episcopal Bishop, yep Bishop David Rice) has violently and without regard to many of us ripped our religious/spiritual world to shreds. Am I, are we upset? Oh, you bet! Is there any thing that we can do about it? Apparently not.

Shall we begin at the beginning. In 2007, our nightmare began. We lived unattended and un-served until March of 2008. Joyously we came together in the diocese and from 5 parishes up sprang new life in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin! Pretty much everyone from all sorts of places including the Presiding Bishop came to celebrate our new life. The members of these parishes and of the diocese were told of a new beginning -- no more hidden agendas, full transparency, and love and grace all around! We were ecstatic at Christ the King Community Episcopal Church. Bishop Lamb came to serve and usher in this new age of openness and "all are welcome". Bishop Lamb then handed off the diocese to Bishop Talton, Bishop Talton continued to remake our diocese and our parishes into new life in Christ. Bishop Talton then handed the reigns over to the new Anglican bishop from New Zealand, Bishop David Rice. With this "election" we were slipping back into the nightmare we had so many months ago thought was gone. The Bishop was brought to our diocese by the Standing Committee without any input from the parishioners of the diocese from New Zealand. He was elected by the standing committee without any widespread knowledge of who this person was. Bishop Rice was hailed as the new "missioner bishop" from wherever and before we the parishioners of the diocese knew we had a bishop. When the convention was asked to approve his eection Bishop Rice had moved everything from New Zealand to our diocese and had lived here for months. At no time did Bishop Rice make a visit to Christ the King and yet we were asked to "ratify" his election. He was not even approved to practice in our diocese before he was elected. The Standing Committee (of which no one knows exactly who is because the names of the Standing Committee have never been posted to the diocesan website) simply said to us, here is your new bishop. Let me clear a little of the water, the Standing Committee and the Diocesan Council have not had their names posted on a diocesan website. If you from our diocese recall, we were in a new beginning, a breath of fresh air?

In the meantime the bills for the continuing lawsuits against those parishes and the faux diocese continued to mount into the millions of dollars borrowed from the National Church. Then, out of the blue, came the need for the diocese to close the episcopal Church of Christ the King and "merge" with the renegade parish of St. Paul in Modesto. Votes were taken, visits were made, private meetings were held, secret deals were made and then un-made. One of the five parishes that stood with the National Episcopal Church through thick and thin was to be closed and merged with a renegade church that had just been hauled back into the diocese. It was at this point that I put several questions to the Rector of Christ the King, the bishop of the Diocese, and the Chancellor of the diocese. These questions included when was the last time the diocese, Christ the King and St. Paul's books and records were audited? Why, well, in accounting in order to merge to entities it is only fit to understand the current financial pictures of both parishes prior to merging. Turns out Christ the King had not had a financial audit in over 6 years. Turns out neither has the diocese. According to the constitution and canons of our church audits are REQUIRED on an annual basis. The parishioners of CTK were told that our parish was in a horrible state and that St. Paul's was "not that bad". So I asked anyone and everyone to have an audit done -- and nothing happened. We, CTK, could not even see the financial records of either the diocese or St. Paul's. See, the diocese has a ton of borrows from the National Church. The money that has been sent from the National Church to the diocese is in the millions and can be accounted for it in the books in only one of two ways. First, an outright gift is income to the parish and outgo from the National Church. The National church gives the Local parish a dollar. The national church the lowers their net worth by a dollar and the parish increases their net worth by a dollar. But wait! These millions were mostly loans! That means that in order to maintain the same net worth at the National level there needs to be a due to/due from entry to show that the loans have not decreased the National Church's net worth. Think we could see the books and records? Well, hell no. None of our business, don't worry, everything is okay. If something fast and loose has not gone on at the diocesan level then the diocesan Bishop and the Chancellor want us to think there is.

Now comes the "cone of silence". First Bishop Rice said that the two parishes were going to merge and CTK will be closed. The parishioners rose up and said, uh, do we get a voice in this here sing-along? The bishop backs up and has the CTK vestry vote on the merger. Then, no, no vote was taken, the vestry needed to have parish input. The single page flier that was distributed said that the paln for restructuring the diocese called for the merger and the vestry was asking the parish to support this plan. Well, I asked the bishop, the rector, the chancellor, the standing committee and no one could produce any kind of "plan" at all. Apparently it was all in the head of Bishop Rice and the Standing Committee but no one could see it because ?? Well, it flat out did not exist. But, the parish voted on the merger with almost all but 4 approving the merger but all said, "What else can we do?"
The railroad had left the station just like in December of 2007.
Over the course of several written emails and messages to the Chancellor I asked for audits, financials, for explanation of how our merger met with the constitution and canons since I had read them and as far as I could tell the process was really truly screwed up. I asked for all sorts of explanations in April of of 2014 from the Chancellor of the diocese. He told me he was just too busy to deal with such questions. I wrote to the Bishop. I wrote to the Rector. Then, in the Fall, August, I wrote an other letter to the Chancellor and copied the National Church. The National Chancellor told me that she had spoken to the San Joaquin Chancellor and sure enough, Mr. Glass was going to take care of it. I wrote a third letter to the Chancellor. I then had the audacity to use messaging to contact Mr. Glass. Mr. Glass wrote back and said do not use messaging, that is my social outlet. And, he said he did not even remember what I had written to him about. So, I went back, re-examined my sources and cites and then sent him another letter. He emailed back he was just too busy but he would get back to me. Needless to say he has not to this day! Some of those questions and citations had to do with the procedural way in which Christ the King was closed and the way in which St. Paul had agreed to merge. O well, so much for the openness, transparency, for long range planning, for short range planning, for punishing the parish that stuck with the National Church while rewarding the parish that not only left the Episcopal church but linked up with some diocese in Africa!
Needless to say my spouse has MS, I have a 100% complete and total disability assignment from the VA and the VA wrote to the the DMV and the DMV revoked my license. See, we have no transportation. This is a huge thumbing of the collective Episcopal nose and a family that really has no voice, no vote, and that family has been virtually removed, no excommunicated, from the Episcopal church.

My gosh, evryone is welcome -- everyone except those not welcome by Bishop Rice, Father Glenn Kanestrom and some silly officious senior warden from St. Paul Parish in Modesto.

Friday, October 24, 2014

It is true and the saga is quite sad. Christ the King Episcopal Church has been betrayed, perhaps by the National Church, but surely by the Diocese of San Joaquin, the Bishop David Rice and the Rector, Father Glenn Kanestrom, as well as the vestry of Christ the King.

In the interest of transparency, Christ the King has struggled with finances almost since its inception but the fact is we as a parish have always pulled together to make it through the rough spots. We have always made it through, with God's help.

In December of 2007 John David Schofield split the diocese and took about 3/4s of it to the Southern Cone. Lo and behold, there were about five parishes that fought tooth and nail and we stayed with the Episcopal Church. Those of us in those five parishes waited for what seemed about ever -- actually it was about 3 months -- to await someone or something that would help us. While parishes throughout the country came to our aid we received no word from the National Church. Finally, the National Church decided we in the San Joaquin Diocese were worth saving. They came to our rescue with promises of a brighter day! Kathrine Jeffers Schori visited us as well as many clergy from everywhere and the President of the House of Deputies. All the big wigs showed up! Euphoria was the general feel of the day as promises of a more supportive Episcopal Church! A more open church that welcomed everybody. We were all joyous! Though we were few we had fought a good fight and for that God rewarded us with an "angel".

From 2008 until last week I personally asked for a facilities plan and a mission plan both of which would be diocesan wide and hold funds in reserve for contingencies. I asked the Chancellor, I asked two Bishops, I asked the Rector of Christ the King. Never saw one, no one ever did one. How are we going to determine what to do with our property when each church is returned to the diocese? What are we going to be about without a diocesan wide plan to point us in the direction. I was also told (on more than one occasion) We could not possibly share "that information" audits for fear that it would be turned against us. Huh? I was told there was a sustainability plan. I asked the vestry, I asked the Bishop (4 times) I asked Fr. Kanestrom about 4 times. The Bishop finally relented and told me that Fr. Kanestrom will ask the Chair of the Standing Committee, whoever that is. See, the Standing Committee and the Diocesan Council do not have the members names listed on the website (or as far as I know nowhere else), but they have a sustainability plan. Really? Well to this date I have never seen one or had one put in my hands. Do we dare make the assumption that we don't have any of those because they would be turned against us in our lawsuits. Did I mention that our lawsuits on the issue of returning our lost property to our diocese has taken over years and we are still not done! What fun this is. When the Standing Committee submitted the Anglican Bishop from New Zealand's name for approval most of us had no idea that the search process was that far along. Now we have an Anglican bishop (at least he is real) and by his own admission has no idea what had happened in our diocese under the care of John David Schofield (bless his soul but here he is making decisions for all of the parishes.

Christ the King Parish, suffering from low pledges, over the last few years had entered into a verbal contract with the owner of a pre-K/daycare center for the use of our classroom. They fixed it up to the tune of $40,000.00 +/-. The day of reckoning comes and the full lease goes to our new Anglican Bishop and it appears he has refused to sign the lease. Why, well wait for this one -- it is a doosey!

Christ the King was to be closed and merged with one of the parishes that had left to go south and had been recovered through "negotiations". Yes, that is right, the Episcopal presence was being removed from Riverbank in favor of a breakaway parish that had to be sued before they would come home. Christ the King, one of only 4 or 5 parishes that stayed the course when everyone else was running around wondering what to do! And we did it by use of an Anglican Bishop and the help of a vestry that has absolutely no imagination, and a rector who seems to be weary of the struggle. And what are we to do about the Daycare Center.

Let me say, the vestry did no study, we do not know which of the facilities Saint Paul, Modesto or Christ The King, Riverbank has the greater cost/value (one has a mortgage payment but one has an incredible amount of repair work that needs to be done). The vestry could only offer two plans: 1, close our doors and move to St. Paul Modesto or not? Those were our two choices! Can you imagine that 8-12 people could not come up with one realistic second plan? Really, given our choices I can say that God must have missed a bunch of folks when she was passing out imagination. The two plans are presented by the vestry and the vestry told the parishioners that all the options had been compared against the "sustainability plan". Yep, you guessed it, the plan no one has a copy. No research and built on pure fabrication the issue went to a vote today. We had no formal meeting and no formal discussion prior to the vote.

Now, let's see what has changed since January 2008. The diocese has had three bishops (now on our third) and Bishop Rice admits that he had no idea of the history of any of the parishes as regards the the 6 or so years pre-split and no information regarding the experiences after the split. The diocese is quite frankly a million dollars in debt (2-3 conservatively) and while the national church has helped us a great deal it came with more strings attached that any one was ever initially told (at least out loud). We have a complete gag order on virtually everything that comes from the diocese as the Chancellor (the guy doing the lawsuits for the National Church) says if someone says something then the bad guys will leverage the information against us. The diocese has had secret meetings with the National Church Standing Committee and a main topic of discussion has been sustainability (whatever that means). If there was a discussion of what church was going to be shuttered, then under the promise of complete transparency the members of the diocese most affected by that should have input not just inside the diocese but at the National level.

Would it be too bold to suggest that nothing has changed but the names since December of 2007. The actions of the elite are the same as before 2008 however those who wanted to have power now have power. Now, as a point of information I came from another denomination over 40 years ago so that I would no longer subject myself or family to this type of "crap".

For those in Texas, and Pittsburgh and Quincy and wherever else, it is never to early to ask for financials, audits and plans early and apparently often.

We at Christ the King have been rewarded with "close the place". A place God brought us for the purpose of letting his light shine through us in Riverbank. A place where, those who are feeling disabled emotionally, physically, spiritually, could gather and be healed. My cheek feels slightly moist, wait, was that a kiss I just received?

Friday, August 22, 2014

Yes, you read the lead in to this edition correctly. Much of the results (of the tactics currently being used) remind me of the shift south to the Southern Cone. Life is tough, then you get out of bed.

There is a move afoot to merge Christ the King (Riverbank) with Saint Paul's Modesto. Here are at least some questions that have not been answered sufficiently.
1, Which of the two (CTK and SP) is worse off financially?
2, How will the diocese help the merger financially?
3, What are the long term goals and objectives of the Diocese?
4, Where are the long term financial plans that this merger will further?
5, Where are the long term plans for returning property to the diocese and how is the diocese
going to merge, keep open, close, and or sell property to further to goals and objectives of the
diocese?
a) long term plan for the large amount of cash that will be returned to the diocese?
b) long term plan for the ECCO conference Center that will be returned shortly?
6, the long range plan for clergy training, staffing and working.
7, long range plan for outreach to grow the San Joaquin diocese?

These are the issues I can think of prior to any merger or anything else in the diocese. Can you, the readers think of any more? Just enter it in the comments section..

Saturday will be our day of rest and Sunday is the target date for a whole lot of movin' and shakin'.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Things are beginning to heat up here at Christ the King in the diocese of San Joaquin. It is the summer and the temperatures have hovered around 95 - 102 degrees over the last few weeks. Once in a while in cools off to 91 or so. But for the parish of Christ the King I am reminder of a song verse/line, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

I suspect because of copyright issues you will have to go the the sfgate.com website and view the Sunday paper, the comic this refers to is titled Non Sequiter

Now, Bishop David Rice, our Bishop from New Zealand is coming to Christ the King to celebrate the Eucharist this Sunday, August 24, 2014. After the celebration, Bishop Lewis will address the parish and then we will "dialogue". I suspect the Chancellor will accompany Bishop Rice (ugh, oh!). Here is some of the information that has been gathered. Deacon Steve Bentley, has been reassigned to another parish within the diocese as of September 1. That leaves us with our longstanding but retired Deacon, George Cano; Rector Glenn Kanestrom, and Associate Rector Stan Collins. By the way, as most of you know, deacons serve strictly at the pleasure of the Bishop. The vestry of Christ the King has already discussed the issue of returning to St. Paul's in Modesto and approved of the idea. Bishop Rice has served for many years as an Anglican in New Zealand and as such is not used to the democratic process/convention system we Episcopalians guard so jealously. The decision comes at a time when Christ the King is having financial difficulty (as are almost all the other parishes in the diocese). I believe that the diocese has decided to cut their losses and we are the first pilot project.
The rector/priest in charge at St. Paul's will be taking a disability retirement and by naming our rector as the new rector for the newly combined parishes the diocese saves on at least the benefits from reducing by one the total number of clergy. Did I mention the diocese is in financial straits with a debt equity ratio that would collapse even Apple computers. This is a way of demonstrating to the National Church their desire to stay in existence.

Tomorrow, I will set out the negative side of this question. Until then, this is Fred signing off and saying, "Good night and good news."

Monday, August 18, 2014

Welcome to the re-opening of Real Anglicans. It has been enough time and as you might suspect, I am Real Anglican "upset". Here is a quote from my very first post in Sept. 2009:

A personal note in closing. We are madly, wildly and passionately in love with our Lord, Jesus Christ. We came to this conclusion through our beloved Episcopal Church. Truly we struggle from time to time but scripture, reason and tradition bring us through every time. Our God is madly, wildly passionately in love with us and sent Jesus to make sure we knew that. Trust us when we say we will no longer stand idly by and allow some group of thugs parading around as God's chosen stealing from us God's poem of love to us. Forewarned is forearmedThis blog was open from then until about two years ago when I discovered (among other things) I was writing to much about political things and too little about the diocese of San Joaquin and the Episcopal issues in general.Since our diocese began anew in March of 2008 money (yep the root of all evil) has plagued us like the frogs in Egypt. Since 2008 this diocese has had no real set of plans, for recovery of the property or for our renewed spiritual journey. I have called publicly for diocesan plans from this blog and our sister blog, Off-topic at least 14 different times from 2009 through 2014. I have had a number of opportunities to speak with diocesan administrators and given outlines of how to begin a collaboration with representatives from all our parishes and one of two things have happened. First, and is usual, I have been patted on my head, told that "sure, we will start that soon", and never again does that topic come up in Diocesan dialogue. Second, I have been told that the "outline is too radical" for a loving, welcoming church. (this loving welcoming church on a macro level has kicked the crap out of any and every parish that went "South". Seems talk is cheap.I have been told there is a sustainability committee but our parish has not seen any sustainability plans. We have been told, it was offered in Deanery meetings. Oh really, where are the CTK updates? Recently, in April of 2014 I asked for an official audit at both the Diocesan level and the Christ the King Parish level. See, issues with cash accounting, separation of duties, gifts to restricted funds, large loans and large accounts recovered from the old diocese and who the heck knows where we are? For example, the parish was told that the vestry had brought funds in from our restricted bell tower fund to augment an anemic operating budget. When asked about who drafted the due to and due from entries and who had approved the actual transfer of funds the person who had been asked the question was hung up at "due...". Did not understand a word and yet this is good financial leadership. It was then that I called for an audit. Once again, patted on the head and told to press on.Our financial accounting is rife with not bad accounting but inept accounting. Now, with no better idea of where we or the diocese are the diocese has decided to "discuss" with Christ the King the OPPORTUNITIES that would be presented if we only merged back with St. Paul Episcopal Church in Modesto. St. Paul's Church, one of the leading parishes to not only break away from the Episcopal Church but then breakaway from the Anglican doctrine. St. Paul Church whose parishioners were arrogant and nasty as they went out the door. St. Paul's Episcopal Church who has a more spacious facility and the Bishop has setup a Cathedral there (instead of Fresno). Can you, our Episcopal readers fathom a more spiteful gesture than having a stalwart leading parish in the fight to remain Episcopal, a parish that was out on a limb for three months while everyone in New York debated in what appeared to be a cold and calculating manner what to do for three months. Now, because the diocese has been so wrapped up in a singular quest to merely "recover property" Christ the King is faced with paying for mistakes that we never committed. Where are the diocesan plans drafted by a collaborative body from the diocese and approved by the convention? Where is all the money? How much did we/have we/ will we spend on property recovery and how on God's green earth is this diocese going to repay all those loans? (Remember if the National Church refers to these as loans the National Church is carrying these loans as due to/due from and as a result there is no paper loss since there is a loan. However, to forgive a loan, all at once or over a period of time will ultimately reduce the assets of the church by the amount loaned. If you just sucked in a whole lot of air you would have read that last line correctly.And finally, in an ironic conclusion to all this happy news - The Bishop has decided he needs a new car. And, he has asked us (in addition to every other parish in the diocese to kick in some buks to buy him a new car. I have but one word for that : BRASSY.If you can help by spreading the news around, especially to see if other "jacked up" diocese are feeling the same way help us out.Stay tuned. Fred is once again open for business!!!

Diocese of San Joaquin

Your Host

House Rules

The Episcopal "chant" is "all are welcome". In that same spirit all comments from all people are welcome. We require that all comments be vitriol free, no fascinating but ultimately rude words, and a thoughtful presentation. Dissent is welcome as no one has a lock on or owns God. Again, welcome to the Christ the King Epscopal Church.